Re: sblock state on FreeBSD 6.1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sblock state on FreeBSD 6.1
Date: 2006-05-03 03:06:59
Message-ID: 9717.1146625619@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> Just experienced a server that was spending over 50% of CPU time in the
> system, apparently dealing with postmasters that were in the sblock
> state. Looking at the FreeBSD source, this indicates that the process is
> waiting for a lock on a socket. During this time the machine was doing
> nearly 200k context switches a second.

Which operations require such a lock? If plain read/write needs the
lock then heavy contention is hardly surprising.

> Any ideas what areas of the code could be locking a socket?
> Theoretically it shouldn't be the stats collector, and the site is using
> pgpool as a connection pool, so this shouldn't be due to trying to
> connect to backends at a furious rate.

Actually, the stats socket seems like a really good bet to me, since all
the backends will be interested in the same socket. The
client-to-backend sockets are only touched by two processes each, so
don't seem like big contention sources.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD 2006-05-03 07:54:39 Re: XLOG_BLCKSZ vs. wal_buffers table
Previous Message elein 2006-05-03 02:45:13 Re: Is a SERIAL column a "black box", or not?